https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297738 An application by an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was held maintainable only after expiry of the mandatory ten-day period following service of the demand notice under Section 8(1), and only if payment was not made or no notice of dispute was received. Because the Section 9 application was filed on the same date as the demand notice, it was premature and could not be entertained. The transfer of a pending winding-up petition under the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 did not cure this defect. The insolvency admission order was therefore unsustainable, the transferred proceeding abated, and a fresh application remained open after statutory compliance. en-us Mon, 08 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Sep 2021 08:23:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297738 An application by an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was held maintainable only after expiry of the mandatory ten-day period following service of the demand notice under Section 8(1), and only if payment was not made or no notice of dispute was received. Because the Section 9 application was filed on the same date as the demand notice, it was premature and could not be entertained. The transfer of a pending winding-up petition under the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 did not cure this defect. The insolvency admission order was therefore unsustainable, the transferred proceeding abated, and a fresh application remained open after statutory compliance. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 08 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297738